pstore: Switch pmsg_lock to an rt_mutex to avoid priority inversion
[ Upstream commit 76d62f24db07f22ccf9bc18ca793c27d4ebef721 ]
Wei Wang reported seeing priority inversion caused latencies
caused by contention on pmsg_lock, and suggested it be switched
to a rt_mutex.
I was initially hesitant this would help, as the tasks in that
trace all seemed to be SCHED_NORMAL, so the benefit would be
limited to only nice boosting.
However, another similar issue was raised where the priority
inversion was seen did involve a blocked RT task so it is clear
this would be helpful in that case.
Cc: Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Cc: Midas Chien<midaschieh@google.com>
Cc: Connor O'Brien <connoro@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: kernel-team@android.com
Fixes: 9d5438f462
("pstore: Add pmsg - user-space accessible pstore object")
Reported-by: Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221214231834.3711880-1-jstultz@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
e8a1ccd120
commit
e56423bb8e
@ -7,9 +7,10 @@
|
||||
#include <linux/device.h>
|
||||
#include <linux/fs.h>
|
||||
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
|
||||
#include <linux/rtmutex.h>
|
||||
#include "internal.h"
|
||||
|
||||
static DEFINE_MUTEX(pmsg_lock);
|
||||
static DEFINE_RT_MUTEX(pmsg_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
static ssize_t write_pmsg(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
|
||||
size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
|
||||
@ -28,9 +29,9 @@ static ssize_t write_pmsg(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
|
||||
if (!access_ok(buf, count))
|
||||
return -EFAULT;
|
||||
|
||||
mutex_lock(&pmsg_lock);
|
||||
rt_mutex_lock(&pmsg_lock);
|
||||
ret = psinfo->write_user(&record, buf);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&pmsg_lock);
|
||||
rt_mutex_unlock(&pmsg_lock);
|
||||
return ret ? ret : count;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user